The light is brighter from the outside...

It's funny how people suddenly become so critical once they leave a particular branch of the industry isn't it?

Case in point - Marc Reeves, former editor of the Birmingham Post.

In his blog, he speaks about how newspapers (including those under his leadership) have singularly failed to make the most of the internet.

While his thoughts may be exactly right, I do have one question to ask:

WHY DIDN'T YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT THEN?

It's all well and good moaning after the fact but let's be honest, an editor has at least some sway in his own newsroom, even when it comes to the digital offering?

Anyway, let's have a look at what he actually said, at least that way we can nod along and laugh...

"I spent the last 15 years of my newspaper career regularly attending industry conferences in which the threats and opportunities of the internet were endlessly discussed and analysed.

"Pretty much everything that has come to pass was predicted, but what did the big newspaper groups do? Very little that was right, it turns out."

Again, why didn't you, as the person attending these conferences (at no extra cost to your employer I presume) suggest doing anything differently? Or did you and were ignored?

Anyhoo, it continues...

"Saddled by a shareholder base that had grown used to the cash cow returns of a monopoly, the regional newspaper industry in particular was structurally incapable of adopting the entrepreneurial approach that is the only option available when almost every aspect of your business model is rendered obsolete."

Preach on, brother.

Advertising models, editorial models, everything should have changed. While it can be argued that certain elements of news content was, is, and always will be pretty much standard, something, anything, should have changed at some point.

Instead, we have the desperation of blogs, desperation and copycat websites called thisiswhateversomeoneelsehasalreadydonebetterthanus...

Marc makes some very good points very well, yet singularly fails to address what he would have done differently (it's worth noting he is now working for the thebusinessdesk, yawn).

Yet newspaper groups should listen to someone finally free from the shackles of managing directors who have no clue, advertising directors who continue to see online adverts as a 'bolt-on' for in-paper displays and the likes.

It is not easy to theorise that there are many, many other editors, still in office, who realise that they are effectively stewards of a sinking ship.

However, rather than sitting in another meeting talking about it and doing actually nothing, why doesn't some maverick actually try something different?

Why won't someone look to the future? And I mean actually look, not just babble on talking complete shit about how newspapers will be dead soon and we are all going to die, actually see how this could work?

No, they won't, because they have bonuses, pensions and shitty company cars to consider, as do many of us (not me, but you know, trying not to simply batter middle management here, oh fuck it, go on then...).

It's a shame that while these newspaper groups were enjoying the fruits of a booming market, they never actually utilised much of the talent that existed (and perhaps still does?) in the lower ranks.

No, they promoted a bunch of pricks instead, didn't they?

Sorry this has been a bit worthy-wank, I will be funny as soon as I can. Well, I'll try, you know what I mean...

A few funnies to go with the sunshine...

Well, here we are eh? The sun is streaming through the window, everything (even the office car park) is looking fantastic in the gleam, although the glare through the window is still pissing everyone off...

Anyway, enough of that bollocks, let's laugh at someone less fortunate than us, shall we?

First up, I've got to post this, not because the site, the writing, or anything is bad, it's just ludicrous (as anyone of a certain age who remembers proper festivals will agree, I'm sure)...



Isn't that lovely? In fact, to correct myself, isn't everything that is wrong with the modern music festival, encapsulated in one story? Waitrose? Delia Smith? Are you fuckin sure?

Anyway, enough of that folly, on to something serious. Well, kind of.

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/news/100601response.shtml

Genius from the Newspaper Society, which is apprently fighting for us and our jobs. Gawd 'elp us all.

A fuckwit at the Beeb may steal a local rag's story (try addressing the fuckin' agencies NS, who genuinely rob cash from reporter's pockets)? Who would Adam and Eve it eh?

Still, fear not, I hear our old friends at http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/ (bless 'em) have hatched a plan to catch out these pesky story-stealing twats, and it's cunning...


I'm not sure if you can make that out very well, but the salient points are this; the story is about a Gloucester chap, named as "Ibrahim Musaji", who was caught up in the Gaza/Israel/Palestine incident this week.

"All well and good Hapless, those reporters are doing their job," I hear you cry!

But hold the phone peeps. As we cut to the following morning...


The follow up...

"Hey Hapless, you're out of order now, they've even followed the story up and you're still pissing and moaning?" again, I hear your cries...

But look a bit closer (as I said, you may not be able to see, so up yours), or I will just explain...

The first story, as mentioned above, concerns the plight of "Ibrahim Musaji".

The second? Well, that's something else entirely, despite the picture, as that is about "Ebrahim Musaji".

You see?

"Hang on now Hapless, that's it, I'm going to kick your sorry ass for being so out of order when someone simply makes a mistake," I hear you spit from your vile little mouths (not really, I'm sure you're lovely).

I'm with you, everyone can make a mistake, although I found these two on the same day, so why they wouldn't have changed the incorrect one (whichever that is!) is beyond me.

"So, Hapless, what is the fucking point of any of this?" your final cry rings out...

Well, clearly, one of these names is wrong, and I am going to presume it's the first story (as why would you repeat the error?) because a simple search reveals:


Yes, a BBC story, posted a couple of hours later than that at http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/, featuring the spelling "Ibrahim"...

So, from what do we deduce from this dear Watson?

Could it be that the reporter at http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/ is a fuckwit who spelt the name wrong in the first story?

Possibly.

Is it that the BBC then "lifted" said story, therefore making exactly the same mistake?

Again, possibly.

Or could it be that http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/ spelt a chap's name correctly in their first story, then incorrectly in the second?

I leave it for you, my dear readers, to decide for yourselves (theories, answers on a postcard (or email, to the usual address please)...

If you don't know the usual address, it's thehaplesshack@gmail.com, I thank you.

Please, for God's sake...

Now even I'm getting fed up of it.

Yes, it's www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk AGAIN.

I have been made aware of a massive problem that clearly someone at Northcliffe, or at whatever regional centre runs Gloucestershire's site, has overlooked...

Many people, particularly with a relaunch only weeks ago, would want to contact the site to let them know what they think.

So, a contact form is vital you would imagine, and there duly is one on hand (see below).

So, you fill in your comment, yet when you click the 'Send' button, disaster!

You are presented with a page from the beta version of the OLD thisisgloucestershire.co.uk (again, see below)!


And yes, you can navigate around the OLD thisisgloucestershire.co.uk beta site to your heart's content.

Let's hope there is no embarrassing content uploaded on there as a test...

For fuck's sake people, how shit do these sites have to be before someone does something?

Multimedia? It doesn't mean you're a reporter...

The advent of the modern-day newsroom, or hub as it is more-often now known, has spawned a whole new generation of wannabe reporters who, quite frankly, aren't and never will be.

Gone are the days where every newsroom would have one person in the corner - probably an editor's secretary or a newsroom manager (editorial assistants who are over 40) - who thought they were the ONLY real reporter in the room despite having absolutely no training and never having written a word for print.

No, now we have a whole host of people who have come to regard themselves as reporters, simply because they work in the same room as many.

Perhaps the most notable progression in this regard is the multimedia coordinator, or web developer.

These people have never, will never and could never write a coherent piece. End of story.

Yet because they have been sitting in a newsroom for a week, possibly less depending on the annoyance factor of the individual concerned, they are full of pearls of wisdom and anecdotes regarding the intricacies of reporting and newspapers in general.

Only today, a web developer who fits all of the above criteria, began regaling me with tales of how frustrating it can be when you are doing a vox pop and the unsuspecting member of the public speaks to you for half-an-hour on the latest hot topic, before refusing to be named or photographed.

Now, the tale is true and in invaluable one when briefing that week's hapless workie, or a trainee on their first vox pop experience, but when asked whether she had ever conducted a vox pop, guess what the response was?

You guessed it, 'no'.

What was even more puzzling was the confused look on her face, as if experience of actually having done it would have given her frustration any more validity.

I have nothing against these people, I'm sure they play a valuable role, doing the job they are there to do. Lord knows, it's not like we would employ far too many techies simply because they can tell us we need eight people to do the job and those in charge wouldn't know whether that was true or not, is it?

But please, non-reporters around the news globe, please don't absorb the tales of those around you and attempt to share in their wisdom.

Because, God knows, until you've stood in the rain trying to secure that final talking head for 25 minutes, an irate tog at your arm moaning about how they've never taken this long over a vox pop before, you really can NEVER share our pain.

So don't even try.